Fernando Dominguez cut the figure of a young revolutionary leader during a recent lunch period at his elementary school. “Who thinks the lunch is not good enough?” the seventh-grader shouted to his lunch mates in Spanish and English. Dozens of hands flew in the air and fellow students shouted along: “We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch!” Fernando waved his hand over the crowd and asked a visiting reporter: “Do you see the situation?” At his public school, Little Village Academy on Chicago’s West Side, students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria.

Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices.

“Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school,” Carmona said. “It’s about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It’s milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception.”

A Chicago Public Schools spokeswoman said she could not say how many schools prohibit packed lunches and that decision is left to the judgment of the principals. Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district’s food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch.

Does anyone really believe this is for the kiddies? If so, read the last line above for clarification.


  1. Airsick says:

    Great! You don’t want kids eating a sandwich, future consumers gotta get addicted to Pepsi and KFC!

  2. robman30 says:

    This is when parents need to stand up and tell the school we don’t care what u want. Our children our choice. Would love to see my sons school tell me what my child will eat. Sounds to me like a good civil rights lawsuit.

  3. notatall says:

    People who send their kids to schools that do this deserve what they get. They deserve to lose the rights to raise their own kids. They deserve to have their money taken from them and being told what to do. Every god damned one of them. They are not free men and women. And it shows. May your chains rest heavily upon your wrists, because it’s what you deserve.

  4. dusanmal says:

    @McCullough It is definitely not the last line/money issue. It is one and only issue Progressives who laid their grubby paws on the Education care: Control.
    In better times school officials would already be in jail or mental institution. In Chicago of the present time I at least hope for some legal action. Sue those anal obsessives.

  5. MikeN says:

    Michelle Obama is cheering.

  6. TooManyPuppies says:

    Good thing I don’t live there. My friends with kids would meet this ban with their fists or guns. Pick one Madam Principle. A school does not get to overrule what the parent chooses for their kids to eat, period.

  7. So what says:

    Is ketchup still considered a vegetable?

  8. Yankinwaoz says:

    Well how else are they supposed to get the obedience drugs into the kids? They won’t take their vaccinations any more. When they serve sloppy joes on Thursday, you can’t even taste the Ridalin in there.

  9. scandihoovian says:

    Excellent example of working the system. Next up, Special Ed. Goodbye parents’ consent, you’re kid deemed ‘requiring services’ won’t be up to you to decide anymore. How much revenue your hellspawn generates is a much more appealing approach.

  10. deowll says:

    #5 I vote with 5 though I think the money does come into to it. The system gets more money and the elite get to tell the under beings what to eat.

  11. Mr. Fusion says:

    It is one and only issue Progressives who laid their grubby paws on the Education care: Control.
    In better times school officials would already be in jail or mental institution. In Chicago of the present time I at least hope for some legal action. Sue those anal obsessives.

    Our local school board has the same policy for several years now. It is controlled by the Republicans.

    They tried to sue some parents for the cost of their kids meals. They dropped it when the parents pointed out the menu violated the DoA food guidelines and the children didn’t eat it. But the schools still send out the bills and threaten to send it to collections.

    Yup, those Republicans sure do have it all over that lone Principal.

  12. BigBoyBC says:

    The Board of Education in Los Angeles banned the sale of sodas from all campuses. They used the “in the interest of our students health” argument. All the sodas were replaced with “fruit juices”, which still had HFCS and were higher in calories.

    The students stopped buying from the machines, student body funds suffered, and many of the high school kids go off-campus to McDonald’s or other fast food places.

    Typical short-sighted progressives.

  13. bobbo, Republicans are Killing America says:

    As a general governmental/freedom dichotomy is reviewd, its seems to me that things that are forced on people should be paid out of general revenues. Once “bills” are sent to individuals, then that individual should have the right to refuse services.

    In effect: government programs should be “in addition to”, not a replacement of, what individuals choose to provide for themselves.

    This dichotomy arises in many disparate seeming areas of political choices. Here we have school lunch. Let schools provide them for “free” and kiddies can bring their own if they choose. Outlawing soda pop and replacing it with even more unhealthy fruit juice doesn’t raise any issue as there is no general taxation and no individual billing. In general–the school should constantly be tying to provide the best drinks, the most revenue, and figure out the tradeoffs. Rinse and repeat.

    but back to my thought, other similar issues: pay for abortions thru tax policy but you don’t have to abort if you don’t want to. Provide early child care thru tax policy but you don’t have to bear children if you don’t want to.

    Easy Peasy. You just have to stop using government to force your personal choices on everyone else. FREEEEEEEEEDOM! What a concept.

  14. TooManyPuppies says:

    They did that up here in northern CA too. The award went to Minute Maid aka Coca Cola Corp for the HFCS fruit “juices”. Prior to that it was PepsiCo.

  15. Derek says:

    Dont you love how the pro-government whores never seem to pipe up on these stories? Idiots.

  16. Joe says:

    It blows my mind that a school would prohibit parents from deciding what their children eat. Really?

  17. the_haunted_sheep says:

    I know it’s about money, but even their lie that it’s for your own good is fucking offensive. this is just like when san francisco banned happy meals. What would we do if nanny state liberals werent there to make our decisions and protect us?

  18. bobbo, Republicans are Killing America says:

    #19–Haunted Sheep–what lunch did you make for your kiddie the last time? Maybe more to the point–have you reviewed the lunches brought from home in the given district versus what the school offered? Or is it your dogma vs their profit motive?

    #17–Derek==the worst pro government whore provides a better service than the best PUKE. Why don’t you come up and see me sometime?

  19. Derek says:

    Yay! I didn’t even mention a party. Good job. Here a bit of advice. The government grows just as much under republicans as it does democrats. Both parties hate personal liberty. Do you HONESTLY believe one side is better than the other when it comes to power grabs?

  20. So what says:

    @21 nope both sides are only out for themselves.

  21. scandihoovian says:

    bobbo, the psycho babbling troll… should be your name.

  22. Podman says:


    Not only for themselves but also for the Corporations whose funds they depend upon to get elected.

  23. revdjenk says:

    I have heard a lot of voices talk about needing local control, because it would be so much better. So these decisions have been made by local BoE, not state or federal. So throw the bums out, and make a change!

  24. Nolimit662 says:


  25. bobbo, the psycho babbling troll says:

    21–Well DerWreek==let me clue you in:

    Dumbocrats = the Nanny Pro Government Party
    Pukeocrats = anti-government Party

    So, yes, you clearly identified the party, not by name, but by philosophy. Obviously, you need more basic education.

    #22–So what==no, not quite. Notice the Nanny Party had power and was giving away lunches to everybody. The puke party in the same situation would have cut the lunch program out and given raises to the school principal. There is a difference.

    I challenge anyone to set forth the argument that the Super Rich need more tax cuts while the poor, working, and middle classes need service cuts. Go ahead: make that argument.

    If not, wake up Fools. The Republicans want to Kill America but they can’t do it without your vote.

  26. Former Chicagoian says:

    Chicago = Democratic
    Children = future Democrats

  27. Animby says:

    I’ll have the lowest bidder tuna salad and the mystery meat pot pie.

  28. bobbo, the psycho babbling troll says:

    Animby==excellent choices. Much better than the mayonnaise and wonder bread sammaches brought from home.

  29. Animby says:

    # 28 bobbo, “The Republicans want to Kill America”

    Robby, this is in Chicago. Somehow, I suspect the people involved in this decision were more often democraps than repulsives.

    Can’t you change your tagline to read “Politicians want to kill America”?


Bad Behavior has blocked 8093 access attempts in the last 7 days.